Recently, there have been a spate of books written on what it means to be a man. Also there have been the requisite blog posts to the same end. Some of it is quite good (Rev. Zach Garris’ book Masculine Christianity for example) while others are questionable at best.
Yesterday, I came across a typical bite sized X post on the subject of manliness from someone who is getting a great deal of press these days that has stuck in my craw because I think it is nonsense and can do a great deal of damage.
Here is the advice I came across from some genius on the subject of manliness;
The best of men learn how to thrive in moments of intense opposition and adversity. This is the “it” factor. 4th and long. Bottom of the 9th, 2 outs. “Manliness loves…the position of being embattled and alone against the world.”
The first sentence and the last sentence do not necessarily coincide and are not really the same thing. It can be true that the best of men learn how to thrive in moments of intense opposition and adversity while not being true that “manliness loves… the position of being embattled and alone against the world.”
Also, it is facile to compare being “embattled and alone against the world” with 4th and long and bottom of the 9th, 2 outs. When we think of embattled and alone against the world we think of the martyrs of the faith. That is a bit more consequential and trying then needing to make a first down or get a winning hit. Embattled and alone against the world is Polycarp being burnt at the stake. Embattled and alone against the world is fighting with the Confederacy after Richmond fell. Embattled and alone against the world is Pilgrim in Vanity Fair.
I wonder if someone who is dishing out this kind of advice has ever really themselves been “embattled and alone against the world.” I don’t think someone who has genuinely been “embattled and alone against the world” would use such trivial comparisons to the sportsball world.
It’s easy to toss around this kind of advice when not embattled and alone against the world. Much more difficult to live it out when one is in the vice grip of being embattled and alone.
Now if it had been said that love for greater realities moves one to accept their duty — no matter how difficult — I would have been satisfied with the statement. However, no man loves the position of being embattled and alone. Scripture teaches that we can learn to be content in all things but being content is different than loving being embattled and alone.
I reckon the reason I have taken such exception to this quote is because in many respects my ministry has been one of being embattled and alone. I have some experience here. Now, my being embattled and being alone is nothing to be compared with the saints who have gone before such as are listed in Hebrews 11;
others who were tortured, refusing to be released so that they might gain an even better resurrection.
The idea that manliness “loves” this being embattled and alone turns manliness into a masochistic ideal. Now, manliness does endure such but to endure something because of one’s priorities is different than loving being embattled and alone.
Paul can write to Timothy saying;
Thou therefore endure hardness, as a good soldier of Jesus Christ.
4 No man that warreth entangleth himself with the affairs of this life; that he may please him who hath chosen him to be a soldier.
Timothy is counseled to endure hardness, just as Paul himself endured hardness. But love it, in the sense of being delighted in the hardness itself? Only a masochist would speak that way.
Manliness accepts the responsibility that one is called to. Manliness endures hardness out of love for Christ or for family or for the Church. But manliness does not love the being embattled and aloneness just as realities in themselves. That is not manliness and anyone telling you that it is has never been embattled and alone for sustained periods of time. They have never had to fight knowing that they wouldn’t win in the short term. They have never had to endure solitary confinement. They have never faced being the lone voice of sanity among peers that can damage them professionally for disagreeing as the lone voice. They have never had to endure being ground down year after year. They just are not being rational, choosing instead to embrace some kind of romantic nonsense about what it means to be a man.
And what of the others around this man who loves being embattled and alone? What of his wife and children? Is there no awareness that the man who is embattled and alone has no put his wife and children in the positions of being embattled and alone also? This is not to say that a man must do this if the issue warrants it but if a man chooses not only for himself but for his wife and children to be embattled and alone is it really sane to love that when he sees how much it hurts his wife and children to be embattled and alone — and that even if they agree with whatever the cause is that has them all embattled and alone?
Just to be clear, I do agree that manliness learns how to thrive when the chips are down. My beef is using silly sports analogies for something so serious and my beef is with the idea that real men love being embattled and alone. I suppose real men who are masochistic love being embattled and alone.
Anyway … be careful of the advice that is being thrown around out there in Christian corners. More than a little of this advice is not well thought out.
And let us not forget that Christianity is NOT like Islam, which promises every warrior who dies in battle on its behalf automatically a seat on Paradise. That kind of “manliness” is not what the Gospel is about.
Amen to that!
Well-stated. As one who has spent much of life embattled and alone, and destroyed professionally for being the principled voice of dissent, I agree. I don’t love it. Duty. “Here I stand. I can do no other.” But love? No. You endure, but it hurts. God Bless you and your ministry.
I want to win. Two outs, 9th inning… do I want to strike out or bat in the winning run? If the latter, then I get to celebrate the victory. This guy just never wants to win.
Obviously a case of adventures in missing the point.
But the saints of Heb. 10:34 took joyfully the spoiling of their goods. I agree with some of what you say, but think there’s more to it. I’m not Eastern Orthodox, but I think Corneliu Codreanu alludes to what I’m trying to say when he says the ultimate goal is not life, but resurrection. Codreanu certainly knew suffering, but I don’t think he was a masochist.
“We perhaps find ourselves in a more favorable condition than nationalist movements in other countries which have to struggle against either a variety of religious confessions, or the universalistic character of a supra-national Church. The Orthodox Church is instead a national one. Hence the possibility for politics and religion to intertwine and to develop heroism, not merely in the name of worldly glory and one’s patriotic duty, but also in the name of divine mysticism. p. 82. In Germany the situation is made even more difficult by the religious schism that has led to a multiplicity of religious confessions and by racialist-heathen tendencies that oppose Christianity without being founded however on any genuine principles or authentic spiritual tradition. p. 69. I see the true destiny of our people as lying, not in time, but in eternity. Political achievements, culture, struggles, and national greatness are means, not ends in themselves. The ultimate goal is not life, but resurrection.” p. 82.
Corneliu Codreanu, ‘The Prison Notes’